Quote:Are there any particular means or approaches you either have found, or have heard, that most effectively erode or dismantle such?

I ask people to read Matthew 27:50-54.

After they read these few lines, I ask them:

1> Why wasn't the earthquake recorded by anyone else?

2> If you saw your relative who you buried years ago walking down the street, would you record the event?

3> Show me a single record of Jesus written between the year 1 and the year 70.

4> Gaius Julius Caesar[2] (Classical Latin: [ˈɡaː.i.ʊs ˈjuː.lɪ.ʊs ˈkaj.sar],[3] July 100 BC[4] – 15 March 44 BC)[5] was a Roman general and statesman and a distinguished writer of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the gradual transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

(02-16-2012 10:22 AM)Grey beard Wrote: If you attempt to tear down a temple by attacking the foundation, it will fall on you.

Is that necessarily, or inherently accurate, as a metaphor? Aren't there (e.g. modern) ways to attack the foundation without having to actually be under the debris when it falls? I know for myself, when that Temple in my mind finally imploded, there were untold planted explosives involved but with nary an identifiable trace of the supplanters when it went down (when I sighed and simply let it 'evaporate' into the fiction it was). And rather than 'falling' on those that had done the pre-planting, I merely sat down in the dust and ashes myself. Granted, I'm not saying every state of mind fiction falls the same way.

And is the debris represented by the metaphor, the emotions? If so, what might the 'explosives' (rather than the antiquated pick ax/Samson-ish approach) be?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]

But maybe to try and start one, don't you think that showing someone a video of cops beating the crap out of non-cops and asking "what if they weren't cops?" is an attempt to force* or entice another to think, contrary to their natural tendencies?

- NonE

* by "force" I am attempting to imply that you are causing them to be very uncomfortable by putting them in a position they would not choose on their own.

(02-16-2012 10:39 AM)Grey beard Wrote: Can you encourage people to look through a child's eyes?
I have observed the reaction of children too young to know what a " police officer " is, as they watched something like " COPS ". They only see the violence, and not the fictions. The ability to see the violence as it is, is trained out of them as they age.

I sort of agree that children have the ability to see it for what it is. But I don't know that it's something strong enough within itself to settle the matter or influence much (they poop their pants, too); too many variables it seems to me. I've seen 'em smack a play mate and grin contentedly too.

I find a more valuable approach to be, can one encourage another to look for logical consistency versus inconsistency?

Quote:We know all of that. If you attack that directly, you will achieve nothing.

I hafta admit, this chaps irritates ticks pisses me off aggravates disappoints me deeply. First, it's the epitome of what ePrime seeks to address --expressed in non-ePrime, duly noted. But as least with my version, we can go pull facts to use in evaluating it's primacy.

How do you know it will "achieve" "nothing"? Am I nothing? (shut up NonEntity/Jace/zonsb! haha) How does one indeed even begin to define 'nothing' (particularly in the time aspect)? Who establishes "achievement" --and such as being an "attack", for that matter?

That 'attack' tact was a huge part of the demolition of both my State state of mind and my conjoined God state of mind. Did each or any specific 'attack' cause the eventual collapse? Nope. Neither does a single charge in a building implosion. Nor is it insignificant that it takes time between the first charge plant and the last. Did I spit and rant (and "rebuke") on occasion when 'attacked'? Yupp (and I "prayed" Psalms 109 etal for a many of 'em as well). But such eventually fell. Quietly. (as an Xmas gift to my self even, fwiw)

Noting, it was not the 'attacks' as caustic, derogatory/profanity-laced, attacking for attack sake (e.g. Atheism God is stupid, you insane moron, fuck off!); but it was with persistent nibbling at reasoning, appeal to logical consistency, and pointing out hypocrisy and contradiction and circular reasoning, akin to the tact I see boyntonstu presenting in his reply here in this thread. Charges can be long planted before they are 'detonated'. Just as it often is for astatists with the other major religion: Statism. And boy, the number of times I've heard "If you attack that directly, you will achieve nothing" as an "astatist" (ok, ya gotta give it some time; it'll catch and be legit word eventually; the godists/theists statists out number us --presently).

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]

But maybe to try and start one, don't you think that showing someone a video of cops beating the crap out of non-cops and asking "what if they weren't cops?" is an attempt to force* or entice another to think, contrary to their natural tendencies?

- NonE

* by "force" I am attempting to imply that you are causing them to be very uncomfortable by putting them in a position they would not choose on their own.

I was bit by a statist once, and the infection remains.

Yes, that would be forcing. Are we not all blind men with part of the Elephant? The old woman that shares my home was watching " COPS" once, with my then 5 yr old son. I heard him start to scream in a terrified voice " Who does that? ". I went to see what his concern was. The scenario of 6 goons kicking shit out of a fearful teen, had shocked him. The wife started to try to calm him by saying " you don't understand, those are police and they protect us ", or rather that was what she was going to say. I realized he saw the evil as it was, she saw the fiction and was about to make him blind to that also. What followed was a storm of pain as the temples came down. She meant him no harm. She meant me no harm. I meant her no harm, but there we were on a heap of rubble.

(02-16-2012 11:24 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:

(02-16-2012 10:39 AM)Grey beard Wrote: Can you encourage people to look through a child's eyes?
I have observed the reaction of children too young to know what a " police officer " is, as they watched something like " COPS ". They only see the violence, and not the fictions. The ability to see the violence as it is, is trained out of them as they age.

I sort of agree that children have the ability to see it for what it is. But I don't know that it's something strong enough within itself to settle the matter or influence much (they poop their pants, too); too many variables it seems to me. I've seen 'em smack a play mate and grin contentedly too.

I find a more valuable approach to be, can one encourage another to look for logical consistency versus inconsistency?

Quote:We know all of that. If you attack that directly, you will achieve nothing.

I hafta admit, this chaps irritates ticks pisses me off aggravates disappoints me deeply. First, it's the epitome of what ePrime seeks to address --expressed in non-ePrime, duly noted. But as least with my version, we can go pull facts to use in evaluating it's primacy.

How do you know it will "achieve" "nothing"? Am I nothing? (shut up NonEntity/Jace/zonsb! haha) How does one indeed even begin to define 'nothing' (particularly in the time aspect)? Who establishes "achievement" --and such as being an "attack", for that matter?

That 'attack' tact was a huge part of the demolition of both my State state of mind and my conjoined God state of mind. Did each or any specific 'attack' cause the eventual collapse? Nope. Neither does a single charge in a building implosion. Nor is it insignificant that it takes time between the first charge plant and the last. Did I spit and rant (and "rebuke") on occasion when 'attacked'? Yupp (and I "prayed" Psalms 109 etal for a many of 'em as well). But such eventually fell. Quietly. (as an Xmas gift to my self even, fwiw)

Noting, it was not the 'attacks' as caustic, derogatory/profanity-laced, attacking for attack sake (e.g. Atheism God is stupid, you insane moron, fuck off!); but it was with persistent nibbling at reasoning, appeal to logical consistency, and pointing out hypocrisy and contradiction and circular reasoning, akin to the tact I see boyntonstu presenting in his reply here in this thread. Charges can be long planted before they are 'detonated'. Just as it often is for astatists with the other major religion: Statism. And boy, the number of times I've heard "If you attack that directly, you will achieve nothing" as an "astatist" (ok, ya gotta give it some time; it'll catch and be legit word eventually; the godists/theists statists out number us --presently).

Perhaps it would be better for me to ask what will be achieved by attacking a living being's foundation? How well will your ideas be accepted if they become defensive and in an emotional state of mind? Do attacks directed at something they have emotional investment in help them to consider it in a reasoned manner?

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)Grey beard Wrote: Perhaps it would be better for me to ask what will be achieved by attacking a living being's foundation? How well will your ideas be accepted if they become defensive and in an emotional state of mind? Do attacks directed at something they have emotional investment in help them to consider it in a reasoned manner?

Well, you one just never can tell (thus say). We're dealing with individuals, yet often in a blanket environment. I tried to share a snippet of how my 'emotional investment' (mental Temple) fell, as I see it precisely as a result of others persistently coming against my 'foundation' directly and even full frontal (and I distinguished what I mean by that as well). I've seen (personally) and read where it was the same for others. It has been and still is quite an emotional roller coaster for me. Mileage may vary. I'm personally quite grateful for having heard it in each and every venue I did. I'm equally glad it sank in. Who knows if I hadn't encountered in every precise place, and potentially equally significant, as a precise 'personal' expression, whether it would have been as 'clean' a demolition, or a demolition at all? (well, other than the 'gods' and 'seers' amongst us)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)Grey beard Wrote: Perhaps it would be better for me to ask what will be achieved by attacking a living being's foundation? How well will your ideas be accepted if they become defensive and in an emotional state of mind? Do attacks directed at something they have emotional investment in help them to consider it in a reasoned manner?

Well, you one just never can tell (thus say). We're dealing with individuals, yet often in a blanket environment. I tried to share a snippet of how my 'emotional investment' (mental Temple) fell, as I see it precisely as a result of others persistently coming against my 'foundation' directly and even full frontal (and I distinguished what I mean by that as well). I've seen (personally) and read where it was the same for others. It has been and still is quite an emotional roller coaster for me. Mileage may vary. I'm personally quite grateful for having heard it in each and every venue I did. I'm equally glad it sank in. Who knows if I hadn't encountered in every precise place, and potentially equally significant, as a precise 'personal' expression, whether it would have been as 'clean' a demolition, or a demolition at all? (well, other than the 'gods' and 'seers' amongst us)